In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court granted bail to a juvenile convicted of murder, reinforcing the principle that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, focuses primarily on rehabilitation rather than punishment. The decision came in the case Juvenile X vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 818/2024, where the court was faced with deciding whether to suspend the sentence of a juvenile offender who had turned 21 during the trial.
Background of the Case:
The appellant, identified only as “Juvenile X” due to legal protections for juveniles, was convicted by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Juvenile Court, Shajapur, on December 21, 2023. The conviction included charges under Section 302 (murder) and Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant was sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment for the murder and 3 years for the evidence-related charge.
The case originated from Crime No. 171/2021, where the appellant, along with co-accused, was arrested after a body was found in the trunk of a car in which they were traveling. There was, however, no direct evidence suggesting the juvenile’s involvement in the murder itself.
Important Legal Issues:
1. Treatment of Juveniles Who Turn Adult During Trial: The primary question was whether a juvenile who becomes an adult during the pendency of the trial should be treated as a juvenile or an adult for the purposes of bail and sentencing.
2. Relevance of Probation Officer’s Report: The court deliberated on whether the report by the probation officer should weigh heavily in deciding bail or if the gravity of the crime should be the primary consideration.
3. Applicability of Bail Provisions: The court also addressed whether the bail provisions under the Juvenile Justice Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) should apply when considering the suspension of sentence for juveniles tried as adults.
Court’s Observations and Decision:
The High Court, presided over by Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, highlighted that the Juvenile Justice Act prioritizes the rehabilitation of juveniles over punitive measures. Referring to various precedents, Justice Shukla noted that a child cannot be denied bail simply due to the seriousness of the crime or the circumstances surrounding the family, such as a lack of control by adult family members.
The court made an important observation:
“The primary object of the Juvenile Justice Act is the rehabilitation of the child, not punishment. Denial of bail or suspension of sentence can only be justified if there are serious concerns regarding the child’s association with known criminals or threats to his safety.”
In this case, the court found that although the appellant’s father was reported to have a drinking problem and no male adult in the family could supervise him, these factors alone were insufficient to deny bail. The court emphasized that the probation report had no adverse findings regarding the juvenile’s conduct during his stay at the “Place of Safety” (a facility where juveniles are kept until they turn 21).
Rehabilitation Over Punishment:
The High Court referred to several Supreme Court judgments, reiterating that the Juvenile Justice Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, aimed at providing care, protection, and rehabilitation for juveniles. The court ruled that the appellant’s bail application could not be rejected solely on the gravity of the crime or his family circumstances, in line with the Act’s principles of “best interest of the child”.
Order for Bail:
The High Court granted the application for suspension of sentence, allowing the appellant to be released on bail under the supervision of a probation officer. The appellant was ordered to furnish a personal bond of ₹25,000 and report to the probation officer every two months. His conduct will be monitored, and any adverse reports could lead to a review of the bail conditions.
Advocates for the Case:
– The appellant was represented by Shri Aditya Jain.
– The state was represented by Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta.
